|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.84.203.1
In Reply to: RE: I think the left one of those pianos... posted by David Aiken on September 11, 2008 at 20:46:53
David Aiken,
Yes, the instrument on the left is a double manual harpsichord. With the pedals and slanted "cheeks"- the panels to the sides of the keyboards, the pedals and unpainted case- traditionally only Italian and somewhat rarely German harpsichords were finished.
The one on the is easy to recognise as a non-traditional instrument probably made in Germany in the 60's to 80's by a company like Neupert, Speerhaake, or possibly Sabathil. These German harpsichords were made in an attempt to make them stable and reliable, but are typically immensely heavy- (up to 4 times) compared to historic ones and the timbre is typically tubby and mushy. They very often used long string scale lengths to get a longer sustain which required a heavy structure and with the scale shortening required, there often used overwound strings in the bass- nasty. The structure was made even heavier as these have open bottoms- like pianos in an effort to radiate more sound, but they lose both resonance and structural strength. The photo harpsichord has seven pedals and is therefore sure to have the dreaded 16' stop (one octave below normal) Even quite short instruments of these makers were often encumbered with a 16' stop that encumbered the soundboard- used on only a few really large German instruments, and the 16' stops on these modern instruments are pure mud. The 16' also added a row of jacks, the weight of which made the keyboard feel heavier and sluggish- making rapid ornaments difficult. With 7 pedals there's probably also a Lute (nasard) stop too- yet another row of jacks to lift.
You can hear this kind of harpsichord in old Vox recordings by Anthony Payne.
I don't know Mr. Rubin's work, but he made one of the worst possible choices for harpsichord !
Cheers,
Bambi B
Follow Ups:
I know that sort of harpsichord sound.
In my late teens I was trying to learn how to play classical guitar. My introduction to Bach played on the harpsichord was an LP by Wanda Landowska and I became an instant convert to the harpsichord rather than piano for Bach. Then I started to hear some recordings of more historically correct harpsichords and Wanda faded from my life.
Great intro to a wonderful instrument, but not necessarily a good intro :-)
David Aiken
PHOTO: Pleyel harpsichord used by Wanda Landowska from the Harpsichord Clearing House
David Aiken,
Yes, the tubby, muddy timbre of the German behemoth harpsichords especially when the 16' is engaged is really unattractive.
I had a similar experience with Landowska's recordings, but I was fortunate in hearing a lot of old harpsichords in recitals early on in my interest. She used specially commissioned Pleyel harpsichords- what used to be denigrated as "plucking pianos". They were immensely heavy as they had piano-style metal frames.
Years ago, I played a Landowska-era Pleyel in the Smithsonian collection and for me it was impossible- so heavy and overplucking, I couldn't manage it at all. My experience with the Pleyel made all those photos of Landowska attacking the keys from a great height with Eagle talons technique finally make sense.
It's interesting that harpsichords had had a brilliant, careful 300+ year evolution (about 1450 to 1790) and there were those- mainly Germans***- who thought they could throw out all the centuries of refinements and start over, using the piano as the paradigm.
Here's a 1931 Landowska style Pleyel currently for sale, that she apparently played:
http://www.harpsichord.com/List/list_frmset.html
-Scroll to the very bottom of the page.
*** There were also the wacky contraptions of John Challis (Ypsilanti, Michigan!) who made harpsichords with soundboards that were aluminium sheets with foam in between and drilled out aircraft aluminium bridges!
The traditional French style instruments are the usual for concerts and recordings, but I find them often so rich and lush they impose on the music, and like the slightly more articulate nature of Flemish ones better.
Cheers,
Bambi B
I'd love to hear one of those Challis harpsichords you mention. It would be very interesting to hear what kind of a sound those materials would produce. Judging from the sound of tuned aluminium hand bells I've heard, I'd expect a mellower sound than I'm used to, and probably a slower decay as well. I think that's a polite way of saying that I don't think it would sound like a harpsichord :-)
David Aiken
PHOTOS: John Challis harpsichord single manual, 1975 Opus 372, GG-g”’ 61 notes. 3 foot pedals (8', 4', Harp/Buff). 58” spine, 35” w. > From Harpsichord Clearing House
David Aiken,
For three months in the early 70's I used a Challis single manual 2X8' harpsichord as a practice instrument, almost identical to the one on the photos above. This instrument was what I suppose would be Challis at his pinnacle of modernity- aluminium frame, open bottom, soundboard, wrestplank, and the drilled out aluminium bridges, wood case with reverse keys (ebony naturals and boxwood accidentals, pedal stop controls. The keyboard was a piano dimension octave span and piano keypad depth. The jacks were metals as well and, fatally, there was a separate set of jacks for the dampers.
Overall, this was a terrible harpsichord in all the important aspects except that the craftsmanship, materials, and finish were excellent. The action was among the worst I've ever tried- it felt like the keys were being retained by a foam strip- the feel was mushy and heavy from the metal jacks and the extra set for the dampers. Challis, failed as as an engineer in my view by actively subverted one of the elegantly efficient design aspects of harpsichords- just having a little square of felt jammed in a slot on the upper side of the jack for the dampers- which worked perfectly for 400 years.
And, worse, was the sound. You're intuition serves you well, as the sound was alien harpsichord. A fundamental problem was the heavy metal structural frame. The Challis I used was under 6' long and I'd guess it weighed over 100 lbs- where a historic instrument the same size would be perhaps 70-80 lbs- an Italian would be 40 lbs or so. All that mass and the open bottom was a disaster- there was almost no resonance and the sustain was poor- less than a typical Italian, despite the long scale length and consequential high string tension, which typically gives a longer sustain. But the coup de grace was the aluminium soundboard and bridge. Challis was secretive about the soundboards, but I learned these were two sheets of thin metal- (and they're anodized a bizarre greenish colour) with a fairly low-density foam in between. There was little capacitance in the soundboard. The bridge is silly too, as it is a milled and drilled out for lightness, and I can't remember the detail exactly, but I think the bridge was screwed to the soundboard in such a way as to prevent the bridge from continuous contact with the soundboard- perhaps to keep it from buzzing. If I'm correct, this would mean far less- and far less even transmission of vibration to the soundboard.
As I've been writing, I've been trying to think of a similar sound - something we all come in contact with, but I've never heard anything like it- a kind of tubby, hollow sound that is somehow defocused, muddy- and over with all too soon. I could only suggest anyone serious about buying a Challis first buy two sheets of 12ga. aluminium, glue them to both sides of a sheet of 1/4" foam core of the kind used for architectural models and then strike the sandwich with a metal spoon. Is there such a term as "thumpblobby"?
Challis was another example of what happens when 400 years of refinement through craft is suddenly thrown out, combined with some really counter-productive engineering. A dog's dinner of poor design choices that favours innovation for it's own sake over results. The 20th C. Germans- Neupert, Speerhaake et al did a lot of terrible re-engineering, but at least the wood structures and soundboards produced a harpsichord sound and thought the keyboards were piano dimensions- the octave span and length of the naturals
Still, I suppose someone had to be John Challis and put the harpsichord through an experimental phase if only to expose the hubris of modern engineering when applied under false goals.
Cheers,
Bambi B
I so agree with your assessment of the Challis. John built for me a two manual 16,8,4. He and I discussed this configuration. I gave up an independent 8 foot and he placed the plectra to pluck the 8 foot on the upper manual in a different area so that it has it's own distinct sound. It has it's limitations but..the sound of the 16,8 and 4 on the lower manual is overwhelming! John was a dear friend from the old days in Detroit, MI and until the day he died...we remained good friends...he is always missed.
I know everyone is entitled to their own taste and opinion, but I couldn't disagree more with your scathing appraisal of the Challis harpsichord. Back in the 1960s, I studied harpsichord at Northwestern University under Dorothy Lane, and her instrument of choice was a Challis concert double; coincidentally, a few years ago I purchased that very instrument from the University since revival instruments are no longer in fashion. I love it. First, be aware that not all Challis instruments sound the same--NU also owned a single-manual model that I did not care for at all. As for the touch, the large Challis I now own has what I consider a perfect touch, light and not at all spongy the way you describe it. (Perhaps the instrument you encountered was not maintained properly.) But beyond that, Challis was not trying to slavishly duplicate the sound of historical instruments. My own feeling is that virtually no two harpsichords sound alike; a 16th-century Italian harpsichord does not sound like a 17th-century Flemish harpsichord, which doesn't sound like an 18th-century French harpsichord, which doesn't sound like an early-19th-century English harpsichord. Why shouldn't a 20th-century American harpsichord have its own sound? Good examples of what a Challis can sound like are the many Scarlatti recordings made for Westminster by Fernando Valenti, the set of 60 Scarlatti Sonatas recorded by Ralph Kirkpatrick for Columbia, and the recordings made on a Challis pedal harpsichord by E. Power Biggs. I also refer you to the section on Challis in Wolfgang Zuckermann's book "The Modern Harpsichord." Zuckermann had a real agenda with that book; he essentially hated revival instruments and lobbied heavily for only historical copies--and in making that point, his book was remarkably successful. Yet even he couldn't hide his reluctant admiration for Challis's instruments. I also own an historical copy of the 1665 Ridolfi instrument in the Smithsonian, but like many "authentic" harpsichords, it has to be tuned virtually every day, almost like a violin. As a result, it is virtually never played. My Challis, on the other hand, hasn't been tuned in 4 years and still sounds fully in tune; as a result, it gets played every day. To me, that's worth a lot.
Just discovered this thread on Challis. Also enjoyed listening to John Schauer's YouTube presentation on his Challis. I have two Challis doubles, one Valenti's instrument with the 'Tutti' foot pedal and Corfam plectra; the other is a bit longer, same disposition except for the Tutti, a gentler sound with leather plectra. I knew Challis only briefly but found him to be a very generous man. I'd be interested in connecting with his admirers.
David Worth
The lack of sustain surprises me, given my experience with the hand bells I heard, but your comment about poor transmission of string vibration to the sound board would certainly account for that. Your "thumpblobby" is, I think, a perfect term for describing one aspect of the aluminium hand bell sound I heard: a dullness to the initial strike sound and a cloying, dull mellowness to the sustain. There was no "edge" to the sound of those bells. Pick the right music and you could make the performance work but you could never succeed with music that required clarity and incisiveness to the sound, and I think clarity and incisiveness are two of the characteristics of harpsichord sound that make it work better than piano for music actually written for the harpsichord.
Many thanks for the comments.
David Aiken
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: